ArticleBMC psychology2024
Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and process evaluation of group schema therapy for eating disorders: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05812950 (Clinical and Cost-effectiveness of Group Schema Therapy for Complex Eating Disorders), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Clinical and Cost-effectiveness of Group Schema Therapy for Complex Eating Disorders: the GST-EAT Study
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Body as a Battlefield: Identity Development and Psychosomatic Expression in Eating Disorders Across Childhood and Adolescence.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Early maladaptive schemas mediate the relationship between severe childhood trauma and eating disorder symptoms: evidence from an exploratory study.Journal of eating disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEating disorders (EDs), such as (atypical) Anorexia (AN) and Bulimia Nervosa (BN), are difficult to treat, causing socioeconomic impediments. Although enhanced cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT-E) is widely considered clinically effective, it may not be the most beneficial treatment for (atypical) AN and BN patients who do not show a rapid response after the first 4 weeks (8 sessions) of a CBT-E treatment. Alternatively, group schema therapy (GST) may be a valuable treatment for this ED population. Even though GST for EDs has yielded promising preliminary findings, the current body of evidence requires expansion. On top of that, data on cost-effectiveness is lacking. In light of these gaps, we aim to describe a protocol to examine whether GST is more (1) clinically effective and (2) cost-effective than CBT-E for (atypical) AN and BN patients, who do not show a rapid response after the first 4 weeks of treatment. Additionally, we will conduct (3) process evaluations for both treatments.
methodsUsing a multicenter RCT design, 232 Dutch (atypical) AN and BN patients with a CBT-E referral will be recruited from five treatment centers. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness will be measured before treatment, directly after treatment, at 6 and at 12 months follow-up. In order to rate process evaluation, patient experiences and the degree to which treatments are implemented according to protocol will be measured. In order to assess the quality of life and the achievement of personalized goals, interviews will be conducted at the end of treatment. Data will be analyzed, using a regression-based approach to mixed modelling, multivariate sensitivity analyses and coding trees for qualitative data. We hypothesize GST to be superior to CBT-E in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for patients who do not show a rapid response to the first 4 weeks of a CBT-E treatment. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study protocol describing a multicenter RCT to explore the three aforementioned objectives. Related risks in performing the study protocol have been outlined. The expected findings may serve as a guide for healthcare stakeholders to optimize ED care trajectories.
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov (NCT05812950).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.